Comparison of long-term survival for muscle-invasive bladder cancer patients who underwent bladder preservation therapy and radical cystectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective/Purpose: This study aims to compare BPT and RC for long-term survival and quality of life outcomes in MIBC patients. Materials and methods: The study conducted based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020, with search strategy across databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE) used relevant keywords. RCTs, observational studies, and simulation studies were included. Each included study was evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies and the Jadad score for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Disagreements between reviewers were resolved by consensus, and inter-rater agreement was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa statistic. The meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager (RevMan), v5.4. Results: Seven studies (six retrospective cohorts, one RCT) met the inclusion criteria with a total of 25,212 patients. Analysis of four studies evaluating the comparison of BPT and RC showed no statistically significant differences in overall survival rates between the two therapies (HR = 1.14, 95%CI: 0.99–1.31, p = 0.07, I 2 = 0%). Subgroup analysis results showed significant differences in overall mortality (HR = 1.16, 95%CI: 0.94–1.42, p = 0.17, I 2 = 9%) and bladder cancer-specific mortality (HR = 1.11, 95%CI: 0.89–1.39, p = 0.34, I 2 = 0%) between the two treatment approaches. Conclusion: Compared to RC, BPT generally demonstrated similar results in terms of survival, local recurrence-free survival, and disease-free survival. Treatment decisions should be individualized, considering patient preferences, tumor characteristics, and available resources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.051 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".